Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

RE: Status of new relation file naming

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: "'Zeugswetter Andreas SB'" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Status of new relation file naming
Date: 2000-09-15 00:11:41
Message-ID: 000701c01ea9$85de0440$2801007e@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikheev, Vadim [mailto:vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM]
>
> > > Rename... Why would we need in rename with OID filenames?
> >
> > Andreas seems to refer to in place replacement of OID files e.g.
> > using your *relink*.
>
> Sorry, I've messed things for myself.
>
> Ok. In short, I vote for UNIQUE_ID (unrelated to pg_class.oid) file names.
> I think that it's better to implement this (but neither OID nor
> OID.VERSION)
> right now
> because of this is like what we'll have in new smgr -
> tablespace_id.relation_file_node.
> Pg_class' OID is kind of logical things, totaly unrelated to the issue
> how/where to
> store relation file.
>
> Please comment ASAP.
>

Philip Warner mentioned about the advantage of random number.
It's exactly what I've wanted to say.

>> it removes the temptation to write utilities that rely on
>> the internal representation of our data.

It is preferable that file naming rule is encapsulated so that we
can change it without notice.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mikheev, VadimDate: 2000-09-15 00:16:00
Subject: RE: Status of new relation file naming
Previous:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 2000-09-15 00:10:50
Subject: RE: Status of new relation file naming

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group